Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming | Nick Hanauer

譯者: Adrienne Lin 審譯者: Jessica Chang

You probably don't know me,

你們大概不知道我是誰。

but I am one of those .01 percenters

我就是你們聽過，或者讀過的，

that you hear about and read about,

那百分之零點一的族群之一。

and I am by any reasonable definition a plutocrat.

不管用任何標準來看， 我都是個超級富豪。

And tonight, what I would like to do is speak directly

而今晚，我要與其他像我這樣的超級富豪，

to other plutocrats, to my people,

直接對話。

because it feels like it's time for us all

因為我真的覺得，

to have a chat.

該是我們好好聊一聊的時候了。

Like most plutocrats, I too am a proud

就像大多數的超級富豪，我也是個驕傲、

and unapologetic capitalist.

並且理直氣壯的資本主義者。

I have founded, cofounded or funded

我創立、與人合資或者投入資助的公司，

over 30 companies across a range of industries.

超過三十個以上，並且橫跨各種產業。

I was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com.

我是亞馬遜網站的第一個非家族投資人，

I cofounded a company called aQuantive

我投資成立了一家公司叫 aQuantive，

that we sold to Microsoft for 6.4 billion dollars.

以64億美金被微軟收購。

My friends and I, we own a bank.

我和我的朋友們還擁有一個銀行，

I tell you this — (Laughter) —

我之所以告訴你這些，（笑聲）

unbelievable, right?

不可思議，對吧？

I tell you this to show

我之所以告訴你這些，

that my life is like most plutocrats.

是為了表達，我的生活 就跟大多超級富豪一樣。

I have a broad perspective on capitalism

對於資本主要和商業行為，

and business,

我有深廣的看法，

and I have been rewarded obscenely for that

也因此我在財務上有巨大的收穫。

with a life that most of you all

過著你們無法想像的、

can't even imagine:

奢華的生活。

multiple homes, a yacht, my own plane,

我擁有多棟房產、一台遊艇、私人飛機，

etc., etc., etc.

等等等等。

But let's be honest: I am not the smartest person you've ever met.

但是老實說，我不是你見過最聰明的人，

I am certainly not the hardest working.

也絕對不是最努力的人。

I was a mediocre student.

學生時代我的成績中等；

I'm not technical at all.

關於技術方面我不是專家；

I can't write a word of code.

我也不會寫程式；

Truly, my success is the consequence

說真的，我的成功來自於

of spectacular luck,

天大的運氣，

of birth, of circumstance and of timing.

在天時、地利、人合上的運氣。

But I am actually pretty good at a couple of things.

不過有幾件事情我的確挺在行的。

One, I have an unusually high tolerance for risk,

第一，對於風險我有異於常人的容忍度。

and the other is I have a good sense,

第二就是我很有“sense”。

a good intuition about what will happen in the future,

這是一種對於未來的直覺。

and I think that that intuition about the future

而且我認為這種對於未來的直覺，

is the essence of good entrepreneurship.

是成功創業的精隨。

So what do I see in our future today,

所以，對於現今的未來，你問：

you ask?

我看見甚麼？

I see pitchforks,

我看見了鐵耙子，

as in angry mobs with pitchforks,

暴怒的群眾手中的鐵耙子。

because while people like us plutocrats

因為正當我們這些超級富豪，

are living beyond the dreams of avarice,

過著超越想像的奢華生活的同時，

the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens

其他 99% 的同胞們，

are falling farther and farther behind.

生活品質不斷、不斷的在衰落。

In 1980, the top one percent of Americans

在一九八零年，最頂層1%的美國人，

shared about eight percent of national [income],

擁有全美國8%的總收入。

while the bottom 50 percent of Americans

在這同時，最基層的50%的美國人，

shared 18 percent.

擁有國家總收入的18%。

Thirty years later, today, the top one percent

三十年後的今天，最頂層的 1%，

shares over 20 percent of national [income],

擁有國家總收入的20%。

while the bottom 50 percent of Americans

同時美國底層的50%國民，

share 12 or 13.

擁有12~13%。

If the trend continues,

假設這樣的趨勢持續下去，

the top one percent will share

那頂層的1%，

over 30 percent of national [income]

在另一個三十年後將會擁有

in another 30 years,

國家總收入的30%。

while the bottom 50 percent of Americans

而美國底層的50%國民，

will share just six.

僅有6%。

You see, the problem isn't that we have

其實，我們面對的問題，

some inequality.

不僅僅是這些不平等；

Some inequality is necessary

為了維持資本民主高度作用，

for a high-functioning capitalist democracy.

某種程度的不平等是必要的。

The problem is that inequality

問題在於這些不平等，

is at historic highs today

正在處於歷史新高，

and it's getting worse every day.

而且日漸惡化。

And if wealth, power, and income

若是財富、勢力，和收入

continue to concentrate

都繼續集中

at the very tippy top,

在最頂層人的手中，

our society will change

我們的社會將會開始起變化。

from a capitalist democracy

從一個以資本主義為主的民主社會，

to a neo-feudalist rentier society

變成一個新封建、唯利主義的社會。

like 18th-century France.

就像18世紀的法國。

That was France

那是法國，

before the revolution

與手中拿著鐵耙子的暴民，

and the mobs with the pitchforks.

等著革命的樣子。

So I have a message for my fellow plutocrats

在此對其他的超級富豪

and zillionaires

其他的兆億富翁、

and for anyone who lives

以及其他所有

in a gated bubble world:

住在高級的泡泡世界的人， 我有話對你們說：

Wake up.

醒醒吧！

Wake up. It cannot last.

醒醒吧！ 這樣的好景不會持續下去的。

Because if we do not do something

如果我們袖手旁觀，

to fix the glaring economic inequities in our society,

讓我們社會中的 經濟失衡繼續惡化，

the pitchforks will come for us,

這些鐵耙，有一天將會向我們刺來。

for no free and open society can long sustain

因為沒有任何自由開放的社會，可以容忍

this kind of rising economic inequality.

這種經濟上的不平等無限成長。

It has never happened. There are no examples.

歷史上從未發生過，沒有任何前例。

You show me a highly unequal society,

你提出任何一個極度不平等的社會，

and I will show you a police state

我就可以找到武裝起義，

or an uprising.

或者人民暴動的例子。

The pitchforks will come for us

鐵耙子遲早會向我們刺來，

if we do not address this.

若是我們不想辦法解決問題。

It's not a matter of if, it's when.

這不是“會不會發生” 而是“什麼時候發生”的問題。

And it will be terrible when they come

當鐵耙子真的刺來的時候，

for everyone,

大家都會遭殃。

but particularly for people like us plutocrats.

由是我們這些超級富豪。

I know I must sound like some liberal do-gooder.

我知道我聽起來很像個左派的熱心分子，

I'm not. I'm not making a moral argument

但我並不是。 我無意討論

that economic inequality is wrong.

經濟不平等在道德層面上的是非。

What I am arguing is that rising economic inequality

我認為經濟不平等的增長

is stupid and ultimately self-defeating.

是愚昧的，並且最終會導致自我毀滅。

Rising inequality doesn't just increase our risks

經濟不平等的增長，不單單只是

from pitchforks,

增加我們淪於鐵耙子之下的風險，

but it's also terrible for business too.

對於商業也毫無利益可言。

So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford.

我們這些有錢人， 應該以亨利．福特為榜樣。

When Ford famously introduced the $5 day,

福特成功推出“一天工資五美元”方案，

which was twice the prevailing wage at the time,

也就是那個年代普通工資的兩倍。

he didn't just increase the productivity

他不僅僅增加了

of his factories,

工廠的生產力，

he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor

他將飽受欺凌又貧窮的汽車廠工人，

into a thriving middle class who could now afford

搖身一變，成為了有實力的中產階級，

to buy the products that they made.

終於能夠購買他們親手製作的產品。

Ford intuited what we now know is true,

當年福特的直覺，成了今天的真理。

that an economy is best understood as an ecosystem

要理解經濟體， 可以把它想像成一個生態體系。

and characterized by the same kinds

並且跟大自然裡的生態體系，

of feedback loops you find

有著一樣的回饋環路。

in a natural ecosystem,

a feedback loop between customers and businesses.

一種存在在買主與賣主之間的回饋環路。

Raising wages increases demand,

工資成長會帶動需求的成長，

which increases hiring,

需求成長會增加就業機會，

which in turn increases wages

進而更加刺激工資、

and demand and profits,

需求、 以及利潤的成長。

and that virtuous cycle of increasing prosperity

而這樣子增進繁榮的良性循環，

is precisely what is missing

正是我們現今

from today's economic recovery.

正慢慢復原的經濟裡所缺乏的。

And this is why we need to put behind us

這就是為什麼我們務必拋棄

the trickle-down policies that so dominate

深深影響雙方政治黨派的

“下滲經濟”政策，

both political parties

and embrace something I call middle-out economics.

並且實行我所謂的“middle-out經濟”。

Middle-out economics rejects

Middle-out經濟學不認同

the neoclassical economic idea

新古典主義經濟學的主張，

that economies are efficient, linear, mechanistic,

認定經濟體是高效、 線性，並且機制化的，

that they tend towards equilibrium and fairness,

認定經濟體會自動趨向平衡與公正。

and instead embraces the 21st-century idea

反之, ，此主義提昌符合21世紀的思維，

that economies are complex, adaptive,

認為經濟體是複雜，有矯正能力，

ecosystemic,

像生態系統那樣，

that they tend away from equilibrium and toward inequality,

不趨向平衡，反而趨向不平等。

that they're not efficient at all

並且一點也不有效率。

but are effective if well managed.

但是，在妥當的管理之下可以非常有效。

This 21st-century perspective

這個21世紀的新看法，

allows you to clearly see that capitalism

讓我們清楚的見識到資本主義

does not work by [efficiently] allocating

作用的方式，

並不是靠者有效分配資源。

existing resources.

It works by [efficiently] creating new solutions

它的作用方式是經由

提供有效的新方式解決人類的問題。

to human problems.

The genius of capitalism

資本主義巧妙的地方在於，

is that it is an evolutionary solution-finding system.

它本身是一個可以自我演化 而不斷找尋新方法的系統。

It rewards people for solving other people's problems.

它鼓勵人們 去解決別人的問題。

The difference between a poor society

貧窮與富有的社會，

and a rich society, obviously,

有一個最大的差別，

is the degree to which that society

在於社會本身，透過生產的產品，

has generated solutions in the form

來解決民眾的民生問題的能力高低。

of products for its citizens.

The sum of the solutions

社會中存在的這些，

that we have in our society

解決方案的總體所奠定的，

really is our prosperity, and this explains

是這個社會繁榮與否的基礎。這就是為什麼

why companies like Google and Amazon

像谷歌，或者Amazon、

and Microsoft and Apple

微軟、蘋果這類的公司，

and the entrepreneurs who created those companies

和成立這些公司的創業家

have contributed so much

對於我們國家的繁榮

to our nation's prosperity.

有了這麼大的貢獻。

This 21st-century perspective

這個21世紀的思維，

also makes clear

同時也闡明，

that what we think of as economic growth

我們處理民生問題的效率，

is best understood as

跟經濟上的成長

the rate at which we solve problems.

是成正比的。

But that rate is totally dependent upon

但這種效率，

how many problem solvers —

完全取決於有多少人才、多元化、

diverse, able problem solvers — we have,

有能力的人才，來解決這些問題。

and thus how many of our fellow citizens

並且有多少平均市民，

actively participate,

能同時以提供解決的人的姿態

both as entrepreneurs who can offer solutions,

主動參與 ，並且扮演

and as customers who consume them.

消費者的角色。

But this maximizing participation thing

但是提高這樣的參與度，

doesn't happen by accident.

並不會偶然的發生，

It doesn't happen by itself.

它不會說發生就發生的，

It requires effort and investment,

我們需要積極正視，並且投入資金。

which is why all

這就是為甚麼

所有高度繁榮的資本主義民主國家

highly prosperous capitalist democracies

are characterized by massive investments

都有這個特點。那就是

都有大規模的投資， 專門針對中產階級的需要，

in the middle class and the infrastructure

that they depend on.

以及其需要的基本設施。

We plutocrats need to get this

我們這些超級富豪，

trickle-down economics thing behind us,

實在應該拋棄所謂“下滲經濟”，

this idea that the better we do,

這種，只要我們受惠，

the better everyone else will do.

其他人遲早也會受惠的心態。

It's not true. How could it be?

這怎麼可能呢？這是完全錯誤的。

I earn 1,000 times the median wage,

我的薪水相當於最低工資的一千倍，

but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff,

但我並沒有多消費一千倍。

do I?

是吧？

I actually bought two pairs of these pants,

我是買了兩條這樣的褲子沒錯，

what my partner Mike calls

我的合夥人 Mike 戲稱它為

my manager pants.

“經理褲”。

I could have bought 2,000 pairs,

事實上，這樣的褲子我可以買兩千條。

but what would I do with them? (Laughter)

但我買兩千條褲子來，要幹嘛？（笑聲）

How many haircuts can I get?

我能剪幾次頭髮，

How often can I go out to dinner?

能去餐廳吃幾次飯？

No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get,

無論多有錢，我們這些 畢竟是少數的超級富豪。

we can never drive a great national economy.

不可能光靠我們 來推動一個國家的經濟。

Only a thriving middle class can do that.

只有一個國家蓬勃發展的 中產階級能為之。

There's nothing to be done,

我的富豪朋友們可能會說，

my plutocrat friends might say.

我們又能怎樣？

Henry Ford was in a different time.

亨利．福特存在另一個時空，

Maybe we can't do some things.

也許有些事情，我們是做不到。

Maybe we can do some things.

但也有些事，也許我們可以。

June 19, 2013,

2013年6月19號，

Bloomberg published an article I wrote called

彭博刊出了我寫的一篇文章，題為

"The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage."

“資本主義企業家對於$15最低時薪的研究報告”

The good people at Forbes magazine,

富比士雜誌的好朋友們，

among my biggest admirers,

我最大的粉絲之一，

called it "Nick Hanauer's near-insane proposal."

稱之為“尼克．漢豪爾幾近瘋狂的提議”。

And yet, just 350 days

可是，在這文章

after that article was published,

刊登後的350天之後，

Seattle's Mayor Ed Murray signed into law

西雅圖市市長 Ed Murray 卻立法定案，

an ordinance raising the minimum wage in Seattle

將西雅圖的最低薪資

to 15 dollars an hour,

漲到一小時15美元。

more than double

比當時聯邦的平均薪資

what the prevailing federal $7.25 rate is.

一小時7.25美元還多兩倍有餘。

How did this happen,

這是怎麼辦到的？

reasonable people might ask.

正常人可能會這麼問。

It happened because a group of us

這條法律得以立案， 是因為我們出來呼籲，

reminded the middle class

that they are the source

中產階級才是資本主義經濟發展、

of growth and prosperity in capitalist economies.

繁榮的來源。

We reminded them that when workers have more money,

我們提醒了他們， 當工人口袋裡多了錢，

businesses have more customers,

大眾商家就多了更多顧客，

and need more employees.

同時就需要雇用更多員工。

We reminded them that when businesses

我們提醒了他們，

pay workers a living wage,

當商家付給工人薪資的同時，

taxpayers are relieved of the burden

也消除了納稅人對於窮困族群的負擔，

of funding the poverty programs

like food stamps and medical assistance

像是食物券、醫療補給費、

and rent assistance

和租房補助，

that those workers need.

諸如此類低收入戶所需的補助。

We reminded them that low-wage workers

我們提醒了他們 ，低收入工人

make terrible taxpayers,

不擅長扮演納稅人的角色，

and that when you raise the minimum wage

所以當你提高所有企業、商家的最低薪資，

for all businesses,

all businesses benefit

所有的企業、商家都會受益，

yet all can compete.

並且足以進一步的互相競爭。

Now the orthodox reaction, of course,

最傳統的反面看法是：

is raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Right?

提高最低薪資，代表減少總體的工作機會。

Your politician's always echoing

政客們總是打著“下滲經濟”的旗幟，

that trickle-down idea by saying things like,

喊著

"Well, if you raise the price of employment,

“看吧, 提高創造工作機會的成本，

guess what happens? You get less of it."

結果會怎樣? 工作機會就變少了!” 的口號。

Are you sure?

真的是這樣嗎?

Because there's some contravening evidence.

證據顯示完全相反。

Since 1980, the wages of CEOs in our country

從一九八零年開始，我們國家CEO的薪水

have gone from about 30 times the median wage

比國民平均薪水高出三十倍，

to 500 times.

上升到今天的五百倍。

That's raising the price of employment.

這，才是提高創造工作機會的成本。

And yet, to my knowledge,

再說，以我的了解，

I have never seen a company

我還沒見過哪個公司，

outsource its CEO's job, automate their job,

把他們CEO的工作給外包，或者自動化，

export the job to China.

或是將工作機會移出到中國大陸。

In fact, we appear to be employing

不但如此，跟以前比起來，

more CEOs and senior managers than ever before.

我們似乎雇用越來越多的CEO跟高級主管，

So too for technology workers

高科技員工

and financial services workers,

和金融顧問也一樣，越來越多。

who earn multiples of the median wage

他們的薪水也同樣是國民平均的幾倍之多。

and yet we employ more and more of them,

我們卻仍然雇用越來越多這樣的人才。

so clearly you can raise the price of employment

所以無庸置疑的，你絕對可以 提高創造工作機會的成本，

and get more of it.

同時增加工作機會的數量。

I know that most people

我知道大多數人，

think that the $15 minimum wage

都認為15美元的最低時薪，

is this insane, risky economic experiment.

是種瘋狂並且高風險的經濟學實驗。

We disagree.

我們反對這樣的看法。

We believe that the $15 minimum wage

我們認為15美元的最低時薪，

in Seattle

在西雅圖，

is actually the continuation

是一條合乎邏輯的經濟政策

of a logical economic policy.

的延續。

It is allowing our city

因為這條政策，我們的城市

to kick your city's ass.

變得比你們城市優秀的多。

Because, you see,

因為，

Washington state already has

華盛頓州原本就有全美國

the highest minimum wage

所有州裡最高的

of any state in the nation.

最低工資。

We pay all workers $9.32,

我們給所有工人 $9.32 的薪資，

which is almost 30 percent more

差不多比聯邦最低薪資的$7.25，

than the federal minimum of 7.25,

多了百分之三十。

but crucially, 427 percent more

更重要的是， 比聯邦 "有小費員工"的最低薪資 $2.13

than the federal tipped minimum of 2.13.

高了百分之427。

If trickle-down thinkers were right,

如果下滲經濟支持者的想法是對的，

then Washington state should have massive unemployment.

那華盛頓州照理說應該會有 極高的失業率，

Seattle should be sliding into the ocean.

西雅圖應該馬上要沉近海裡了。

And yet, Seattle

但事實呢？

is the fastest-growing big city in the country.

西雅圖是我們國家 發展的最快的大城市。

Washington state is generating small business jobs

華盛頓州所產生的工作機會，

at a higher rate than any other major state

比國內任何一個主要大州，

in the nation.

都來的多。

The restaurant business in Seattle? Booming.

西雅圖的餐飲業？ 蓬勃發展。

Why? Because the fundamental law of capitalism is,

為什麼？因為資本主義的基本法則就是，

when workers have more money,

當工人們有更多錢，

businesses have more customers

企業、商家就有顧客，

and need more workers.

也就同時需要更多員工了。

When restaurants pay restaurant workers enough

當餐廳業者給員工的工資

so that even they can afford to eat in restaurants,

夠他們在工作的餐廳吃上一頓飯，

that's not bad for the restaurant business.

這對餐廳的經營不是壞事，

That's good for it,

儘管有些老闆不同意。

despite what some restaurateurs may tell you.

這其實是件好事。

Is it more complicated than I'm making out?

不過，事情實際上是不是 沒有我說得那麼簡單？

Of course it is.

那是當然的。

There are a lot of dynamics at play.

有許多不同的因素都會影響結果。

But can we please stop insisting

但是我們能否停止這類的想法，

that if low-wage workers earn a little bit more,

認為低收入的工人的工資多一點，

unemployment will skyrocket

失業率就會衝破表。

and the economy will collapse?

然後經濟就會崩潰？

There is no evidence for it.

根本沒有證據支持這樣的說法。

The most insidious thing

下滲經濟

about trickle-down economics

其中一種說法，

is not the claim that if the rich get richer,

"富者更富, 全體享福"，

everyone is better off.

還稱不上

It is the claim made by those who oppose

最陰險的是那些

any increase in the minimum wage

反對增加最低工資的人，

that if the poor get richer,

宣稱窮人變得較富有，

that will be bad for the economy.

對經濟是有害的，才是真正陰險。

This is nonsense.

這簡直就是胡說。

So can we please dispense with this rhetoric

我們是不是可以拋棄這類想法，

that says that rich guys like me

認為像我這樣的有錢人，

and my plutocrat friends

還有我的超級富豪朋友們，

made our country?

是我們建立這個國家 一類的想法？

We plutocrats know,

我們超級富豪其實都知道，

even if we don't like to admit it in public,

即使我們不願在公開場合承認，

that if we had been born somewhere else,

如果我們出生在別的地方，

not here in the United States,

在美國以外的地方，

we might very well be just some dude standing barefoot

我們很可能就是站在小路旁，

by the side of a dirt road selling fruit.

打赤腳賣水果的人而已。

It's not that they don't have good entrepreneurs in other places,

我不是說，其他國家沒有創業精神跟習慣。

even very, very poor places.

即使是最窮最窮的地方，都還是有。

It's just that that's all

只是因為在那樣的經濟體系，

that those entrepreneurs' customers can afford.

那裏的消費者，能買得起的， 就只是那樣成度的商品。

So here's an idea for a new kind of economics,

今天，我要推薦一種新的經濟體系。

a new kind of politics

一種新的政治體系。

that I call new capitalism.

我稱之為新資本主義。

Let's acknowledge that capitalism

我們必須承認，

beats the alternatives,

資本主義比其他的經濟體系強多了。

but also that the more people we include,

但是只有在我們接納更多人，

both as entrepreneurs and as customers,

無論是創業者，或者消費者，

the better it works.

它才會日益茁壯。

Let's by all means shrink the size of government,

我們絕對應該縮減政府的干預，

but not by slashing the poverty programs,

但不是透過削減貧窮補助福利的方法，

but by ensuring that workers are paid enough

而是讓工人階級擁有充沛的薪資。

so that they actually don't need those programs.

進而幫助他們擺脫對這些福利專案的需要，

Let's invest enough in the middle class

讓我們增加給中產階級的投資，

to make our economy fairer and more inclusive,

好讓我們的經濟更公平且具包容性，

and by fairer, more truly competitive,

透過公平，而更有競爭力。

and by more truly competitive,

透過真正的競爭力，

more able to generate the solutions

更能提出有效的，

解決人類的問題的方法。

to human problems

that are the true drivers of growth and prosperity.

這就是走向經濟成長跟繁榮的道路。

Capitalism is the greatest social technology

資本主義是迄今為止，

最好的社會技術，

ever invented

for creating prosperity in human societies,

如果適當的執行的話，

能夠給人類的社會帶來繁榮。

if it is well managed,

but capitalism, because of the fundamental

但是資本主義，由於是一種複雜並且

multiplicative dynamics of complex systems,

利於錢滾錢的系統，

tends towards, inexorably, inequality,

有時很殘忍的會傾向於社會不公、

concentration and collapse.

財富的集中，最終有可能以致於崩潰。

The work of democracies

民主體系必須做到的，

is to maximize the inclusion of the many

是盡可能的涵蓋多數人，

in order to create prosperity,

才能創造集體的繁榮，

not to enable the few to accumulate money.

而不是讓少數人累積財富。

Government does create prosperity and growth,

政府的確可以創造繁榮與經濟成長，

by creating the conditions that allow

透過提供給創業家跟他們的顧客，

both entrepreneurs and their customers

可以蓬勃發展

to thrive.

的環境。

Balancing the power of capitalists like me

像我這樣的資本家還有工人，

and workers isn't bad for capitalism.

平衡這兩者的力量 對資本主義不但不是壞事，

It's essential to it.

反倒是有必要的。

Programs like a reasonable minimum wage,

合理的最低時薪，

affordable healthcare,

還有實惠的醫療保健，

paid sick leave,

有薪病假，

and the progressive taxation necessary

依照收入提高稅收，

to pay for the important infrastructure

為著支付中產階級需要的基礎設施，

necessary for the middle class like education, R and D,

幫助中產階級建立在教育跟 研發方面的基礎設施，

these are indispensable tools

以上都是不可或缺的工具。

shrewd capitalists should embrace

是精明的資本家應該接受、 用來澆灌經濟成長的工具。

to drive growth, because no one benefits from it

因為最大的受益者，

like us.

就是我們。

Many economists would have you believe

多數的經濟學家會說，

that their field is an objective science.

他們的學術是一門客觀的科學，

I disagree, and I think that it is equally

我不這麼認為。

我認為經濟學同時也是一種

a tool that humans use

to enforce and encode

人類使用的工具，用來執行與制式化

our social and moral preferences and prejudices

我們在社會跟道德上的，關於地位與權力

about status and power,

這方面的偏好與偏見的工具。

which is why plutocrats like me

這就是為什麼像我這樣的超級富豪，

have always needed to find persuasive stories

常常需要找一些有力的故事，

to tell everyone else

來說服所有的人，

about why our relative positions

說服他們相信，我們所佔的社會地位，

are morally righteous and good for everyone:

在道德上是說得過去， 並且對所有人都有利的。

like, we are indispensable, the job creators,

我們是不可取代的、創造工作的人，

and you are not;

而你們不是。

like, tax cuts for us create growth,

給我們減稅，可以創造經濟成長。

but investments in you

但投資在你們身上，

will balloon our debt

會擴大我們的債務，

and bankrupt our great country;

並且讓我們的國家破產。

that we matter;

我們很重要，

that you don't.

而你們不重要。

For thousands of years, these stories were called

幾千年來，這些故事被歸類為

divine right.

上天給予的權力。

Today, we have trickle-down economics.

而現今的說法，就是下滲經濟學。

How obviously, transparently self-serving

這套學說有多麼明顯、公開的

all of this is.

自私自利，

We plutocrats need to see

我們這些超級富豪必須認清，

that the United States of America made us,

是美國成就了我們，

not the other way around;

而不是我們成就了美國。

that a thriving middle class is the source

我們須認清，蓬勃發展的中產階級，

of prosperity in capitalist economies,

是資本經濟的繁榮的來源，

not a consequence of it.

而不是它的結果。

And we should never forget

並且我們該永遠記得，

that even the best of us in the worst of circumstances

在最糟糕的環境裡， 最努力的人能達到的最好狀況，

are barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit.

也僅僅是光著腳在路邊賣水果。

Fellow plutocrats, I think it may be time for us

身為超級富豪的朋友們，我想是我們應該，

to recommit to our country,

重新對我們的國家許一個未來的時候了。

to commit to a new kind of capitalism

許一個，有新的資本主義的未來。

which is both more inclusive and more effective,

這樣的資本主義，更有包容性跟效率，

a capitalism that will ensure

這樣的資本主義，

that America's economy remains

也確保

美國經濟

the most dynamic and prosperous in the world.

保持在世界上是最活躍並且最繁榮的。

Let's secure the future for ourselves,

讓我們為了我們自己確保一個未來

our children and their children.

也為了我們的下一代 還有他們的下一代。

Or alternatively, we could do nothing,

或者，我們也可以甚麼都不做，

hide in our gated communities

躲在我們的高級住宅區、

and private schools,

或者私立學校裡，

enjoy our planes and yachts

光顧著享受我們的私人飛機跟遊艇。

— they're fun —

是很棒沒錯。

and wait for the pitchforks.

但同時，我們只是靜候鐵耙子的到來。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

(掌聲)